Bombay High Court
Indubai Dharma Rathod And Others vs The Divisional Manager, Msrtc ... on 8 December, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 939 fa 4280.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4280 OF 2016
1. Indubai Wd/o. Dharma Rathod,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Household,
C/o Babasaheb Chavhan, Pitori
Sirasgaon Tanda, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
2. Umesh S/o. Dharma Rathod,
Age: 15 years, Occu: Education,
R/o. As above.
3.
Rani d/o. Dharma Rathod,
Age: 12 years, Occu: Education,
R/o. As above.
4. Dinesh S/o. Dharma Rathod,
Age: 10 years, Occu: Education,
R/o. As above.
No.2 to 4 being minor U/G of real
mother Indubai Wd/o. Dharma Rathod ... Appellants
Vs.
1. The Divisional Manager,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation Limited,
Through its Divisional Manager,
Jalna.
2. Madan S/o. Revji Chavan,
Age: 43 years, Occ: S.T. Driver,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Mastgadh,
Jalna. ... Respondents
...
Advocate for Appellants : Deshmukh Mohit R.
Advocate for Respondents : Bagul D. S. For R/1
...
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 08-12-2016.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:25:30 :::
2 939 fa 4280.16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Considering the objections raised in the present appeal
in exception to the impugned judgment and award it does not
appear to me that the service of summons on respondent no.2 is
must. As such, service on respondent no.2 is exempted.
2. With consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission
stage. The present appellants had filed M.A.C.P. No. 103 of 2013
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Jalna (hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') claiming compensation on account of death
of one Dharma Rathod in a vehicular accident happened on
28.03.2013 having involvement of S.T. Bus bearing registration no.
MH-06-S-8771 owned by M.S.R.T.C. In the present appeal the only
challenge is to the observations made by the learned tribunal in
para 20 of the judgment, whereby, the tribunal has declined to
award the compensation of Rs. 16,02,000/- on the ground that the
claimants had restricted the claim to the tune of Rupees Ten Lakhs
and had paid the court fees on the said amount.
3. I have gone through the observations made by the
tribunal in para 20 of the judgment. The tribunal has recorded a
clear finding that the applicants are entitled for total compensation
of Rs. 16,02,000/-. In the earlier paragraphs of the impugned
judgment, the tribunal has recorded the reasons for determining
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:25:30 :::
3 939 fa 4280.16.odt
the aforesaid amount of compensation. However, the tribunal has
further observed that, though, the applicants are entitled for the
total compensation of Rs. 16,02,000/- since the
applicants/claimants did not amend their claim petition and have
restricted their claim only to the tune of Rupees Ten Lakhs and have
paid court fees only on the said amount, they deserve to be granted
compensation only to that extent i.e. Rupees Ten Lakhs.
4. The view taken by the tribunal and, consequently, the
order passed by the tribunal are apparently unsustainable. After
having reached to the conclusion that, the claimants are entitled to
the compensation of Rs. 16,02,000/- and after having made the
further observation that, the same was just and fair compensation
payable to the claimants, the tribunal should not have declined to
award the compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,02,000/- on the
ground that, the claimants had restricted their claim to Rs.
10,00,000/- and that they had paid the court fees only on the said
amount.
5. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
A.P.S.R.T.C. V/s. M. Ramadevi reported in A.I.R. 2008 S.C.
1221, there is no embargo imposed by the Legislature on the
Tribunals to grant compensation over and above the amount
claimed by the parties in an appropriate case. In fact, it is not the
requirement of law under the Motor Vehicles Act for the claimants
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:25:30 :::
4 939 fa 4280.16.odt
to specify the amount of compensation in their claim petition. The
duty enjoined on the Tribunal by Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles
Act and the relevant provisions thereof is to assess the just amount
of compensation payable to the claimants; and it, therefore, follows
that the Tribunal is not powerless in making an award even in
access of the amount of compensation claimed.
6. In view of the above the impugned judgment needs to
be modified and is accordingly modified as below.
ORDER
i) The appellants/claimants are held entitled for the
total compensation of Rs. 16,02,000/- jointly and
severally from respondent nos. 1 and 2 with
interest thereon @ 7% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till its realisation.
ii) On deposit of the amount, Rs. 4,00,000/- be paid
to appellant/claimant no.1, namely Indubai widow
of Dharma Rathod by an account payee cheque.
ii) The balance amount be invested in F.D.R. in the
names of appellants/claimants no. 2 to 4 in equal
proportion for the period till the respective minor
claimants attain the age of majority.
iii) Modified award be drawn accordingly.
iv) Before preparation of the modified award, the
5 939 fa 4280.16.odt
deficit court fees be recovered from the
appellants/claimants.
v) The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(P.R. BORA)
JUDGE
mub
